Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 09 June 2019 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA8412011F; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7_TTHJ3R8e5; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C485912006F; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id x17so6011759wrl.9; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=7xrWtzmpNaiJQhNeRi/rkKuachxKrQeXaMx01AQP9Ss=; b=Zg7EIlJZ8BvZ5gm9LcLzQN5XM1lDead/VgPvlYxkiFL6lEk53ZM/VttV1Lah3Rd037 dzlm1sEjfUMyI3/wSbZzdpghOZJnwZyw8xmgZP7PpqVXwQOvR6Z7dNTsi2AnPDOi1yWr z+XKhqFE5TesjFNHh3yZH2aUmSraw++td5j+wR5xObpXS1FUz2ZJoZXrnbwKJXMVCuwt 5N2h4UAaaAaADw1K1BXHfnHkDaKOwULdkisGzCwR5CiLh8DNhG7yQ9a0sZ55fZPUprsA pS0G25lCqXeehK2z5kYih4hjkFssZWOUTLBBQLkU7OkPiaHGh+zNB0AHjaNESduK+Xew 0LMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=7xrWtzmpNaiJQhNeRi/rkKuachxKrQeXaMx01AQP9Ss=; b=NaPJUOYIM/acbFqk+N1vAdlwi9rpc/CWH+Bq34lwI+JGljOpTQ69f6CoiP35CeAGQF PT0JMJFC4Jc4FJwqTjOccDmsKcFN4142tg41lHB9nFSjzClh/dxSsUefZUI5HK7SkgMg ed1bPHS+ZLlXO1Wc9t7IS9pj+rt14jz44t6YH4O/bA8LBpRpIPVS5Nnp16D0W/ryGG7Y qbBIa7JHpVmyYK4I9/9BGK/4Rw81Svdq8h3S2mby1M0cOpj1LdXXi1PIVLqaDsZskqve ps61k9hLe6Ez2PK6eYYiT84Ae6KD74HgmYfT8xlE4N4sxyhfXg4d9emv9uywmuL6j36W 0naA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbphecwjJlYA6VwP8GE/wh8xpojt5Iw/VTETpWn/vpjU/0IypK /Foz8nWqJoGy8iz5HDhdfQ/89Q/M
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7qh57zPfo1j2oZEjDRgt9zygcDrP6RALb7MPy4GBcVNYOzsKTbzgCCZAZing69FQunjmJDw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:b643:: with SMTP id i3mr11664265wre.284.1560065366139; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.86.207] (94-43-130-14.dsl.utg.ge. [94.43.130.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d18sm6933393wrn.26.2019.06.09.00.29.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:10 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <a4ae53f4-3cf8-407b-8d40-1f0782537272@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <06e501d51da1$aabc8780$00359680$@ndzh.com>
References: <06e501d51da1$aabc8780$00359680$@ndzh.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: a4ae53f4-3cf8-407b-8d40-1f0782537272@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5cfcb554_431bd7b7_58f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PNfWH0GcLvL2T6A2tU3NXsgPbL4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:29:31 -0000

Sue,

Wrt 2 IPR statements:
this is the same IPR, one published against individual draft, another, after idr has adopted it.

The author will be working to address your comments.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jun 7, 2019, 7:27 PM -0700, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>, wrote:
> Jeff, Ketan, Uma, Greg, and Nikos:
>
> My initial shepherd review of draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt  has three points:
>
> 2 IPR statements means the draft will have to go through an IPR call for the IPR issues
> Error handling section needs to be added to the draft (requires -06.txt)
> The implementation report needs to be improved (see below)
>
> After all things are completed, I will start the WG LC.
>
> Sue Hares
> (Shepherd/WG co-chair)
>
>
> 2 IPR Statements
> -----------------------
> The 2 IPR statements for this draft means that after all authors indicate IPR knowledge,
> I will need to do a WG call for considering the draft with 2 IPR statements.
>
> Otherwise, the IESG may wish to cycle a discussion on the IPR.
> It takes less time to just do it up-front.
>
>
> Error handling
> ----------------
> This draft must add an error handling section that indicates what happen if the
> Node MSD TLV and the Link MSD TLV are incorrectly parsed.
> This is a requirement for the shepherd/WG chair to send this to WG LC or the
> QA reviews (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR).
>
> I also would prefer to see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis/
> as a WG document prior to sending this to the IESG.
>
> Could you check with the authors to determine its status?
> Otherwise, the error handling section in this draft will need
> to be improved.
>
>
> Implementation report improvement
> --------------------------------------
>
> The implementation reports for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05 needs improving and your draft needs to have additional error handling specified.
>
> You need to indicate key features:
>
> MSD and SR routing interaction
> MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is not enabled.
>
> MSD and BGP-LS interaction
> 2a) The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the
>      MSD information for the local node and its links when not running any
>      link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing
>      protocol.
>
>      2b) This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may
>      be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS.
>
>
> Support for Node TLV parsing
> 3a – feature support ( yes/no)
>
> 3b-  MUST  (yes/20)
>
>          MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
>          0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
>          depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value
>          MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
>          configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.
>
>
>         3c) Support for Error handling if Node TLV is incorrectly parsed – This needs to be specified your draft
>
> Support for Link MSD TLV
> 4a) support for feature
> 4b) support for error handling if Link MSD is incorrectly parsed
>
>
>